Slashdot Mirror


Delta 4 Inaugural Launch A Success

brandido writes "Space.com is reporting that the Delta 4 has lifted off from Cape Canaveral at 5:40 pm EST. According to the Article: 'Boeing's Delta 4 has lifted off from pad 37 at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Everything appeared to be working normally with the rocket as it made its initial climb out over the Atlantic Ocean during the first minute.' It will now take the two-stage rocket some 37 minutes to deliver the Eutelsat W5 spacecraft to orbit, so keep your fingers crossed all continues to go well.'" Looks like everything went swimmingly well.

29 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. cams? by dirvish · · Score: 4, Funny

    Were there any mounted cameras for cool launch vids?

  2. dv? by RalfM · · Score: 5, Funny

    but did they strap a video camera to it???

    --
    The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.
    -Bertrand Russel
  3. why so many launch pads? by NeMon'ess · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What use can there be for at least 37 launch pads on one base?

    1. Re:why so many launch pads? by Chairboy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not all the pads are active. For example, the launch pads they used to fire off Snarks and V2s captured from Germany in the 1940 are of limited use when launching vehicles that are literally hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of lbs heavier.

      A shuttle launch pad (there are two active) has a very different set of requirements from a Titan V or Atlas launch pad, for example, because of the SRBs, the launch escape system, and more.

      Additionally, newer pads are getting simpler and simpler to lower costs and increase reliability.

  4. Fingers crossed... by YahoKa · · Score: 4, Funny

    I would cross my fingers, but this happened at 5:40. It's 8:20 now.

  5. DON'T SAY THAT!!! by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like everything went swimmingly well.

    Don't say "swimmingly" when there is a rocket flying over the ocean with a satellite payload. Swimming is the last thing we want the satellite to do.

  6. no crash by pyr0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh...I'm guessing they *didn't* get John Carmack to design the onboard computer :)

  7. New update: It crashes into Bagdad. by heldlikesound · · Score: 5, Funny

    Rueters:

    The Delta 4 swerved suddenly of course at 5:45pm today and headed for Iraq with uncanny precsion eventually crashing into Saddam Hussein's secret, undergroud, booby trap filled hideout. A Pentagon spokesperson said "Our plan is working wonderfully, uh, I mean... to bad about the whole rocket foul-up."

    --


    Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
  8. Re:All Looked good from a live view by Cali+Thalen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Delta rockets have a pretty good (98%+?) success rate. I have a tendancy to get them confused with the larger Titan 4 series that seemed to want to blow up a little more frequently. I believe the Titan 4 has a failure rate under 10% now...not that that's a good number, but it's better than it used to be.

    I was working for a company that did work on both, and I remember the huge disappointment when one of the Titan 4's exploded at launch...it seemed like the program would be declining rather quickly after that. Job security and all. The Delta program always seemed much more reliable in comarison.

    --
    Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
  9. Re:All Looked good from a live view by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 5, Informative
    Real question I ask, is why are they back to using the Deltas? Didn't the older ones blow up enough or are the Shuttles THAT booked up?

    Most satellites are put up with rockets, not the Shuttle.

  10. Video here by w42w42 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Seattle PI had this link on their webpage.

  11. Here's hoping. by FreeLinux · · Score: 4, Funny

    Here's hoping that Boeing doesn't acquire Armadillo Aerospace. I'd hate to see what would happen if John was launching a Delta 4.

  12. Full success by ajakk · · Score: 5, Informative

    Space.com is now reporting that the entire launch was a success. It made it through the last 37 minutes and deployed the satellite.

  13. Some more info about the actual satellite by linux_student · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unfortunately space.com's article doesn't say much about the actual satellite, a few more details here: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/satellite-biz-02zc. html

  14. All this technology available... by soulctcher · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...and we still don't use flying cars.

    1. Re:All this technology available... by linux_student · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Look at how most people drive; would you really like to deal with that at any kind of altitude?
      Not me buddy! I'll continue using normal roads until they actually give real driving(or flying)
      examinations before putting some kid behind the wheel of a flying car.

  15. Eat your Heart out Carmack! by Liquidity · · Score: 5, Funny

    Boeing:1
    Carmack:0

  16. Cost and reliability by chazR · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's about cost, reliability and payload.
    {Note - this goes off-topic because I googled a bit and was stunned by modern launch capability. Sorry}

    A Space Shuttle can throw about thirteen tonnes into low earth orbit. That's a huge chunk of satellite. Unfortunately, NASA will charge you in excess of $500 million for the service. The reliability is excellent. One failure in over 110 launches. Probably the most reliable launcher in history. Use the Space Shuttle if it's very heavy, cost is no problem and it absolutely, certainly, definitely must get there.

    Delta is an old, proven, excellent technology. It used to be considered a 'light' launcher. Delta IV, however, can smack a meaty Thirteen tonnes to orbit. Yowza. I only found that out now. OK, that vehicle hasn't been built yet.

    Whoo-Hoo! I just read that page again. The Delta Heavy (not built yet, but all technology in place) can stuff 13 tonnes into Geosynchronous transfer orbit. It can throw (and this is astonishing) twenty-three humungous tonnes to low earth orbit. What the hell can compete with that?

    Well, Ariane 5 ECS-B can do twelve tonnes to Geosynchronous orbit. No payload assist required for orbit transfer.

    The Russian Proton
    can do about 23 tonnes to low earth orbit. This is the only one I know the cost for. You want twenty-three thousand kilogrammes orbiting at 350 kilometers? 75 million dollars. Cash up front, go talk to your insurers. (The Proton is almost as insanely reliable as the shuttle, actually - certainly comparable with Delta)

    Right. That's it. I'm going to become a rocket engineer. It's got to beat the hell out of managing telecoms networks for a living.

  17. I would not really call it successful until by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lance Bass, Bill Gates, John Ashcroft, and the PanIP bastard all have a meeting underneath it at launch time.

  18. I kinda like the Delta III better by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, purely from an aesthetic standpoint.

    There's just something about a liquid fueled center surrounded by a bunch of boosters.

    The whole thing just looks beefy.

    --
    Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
  19. Yes, it could. Re:range by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Informative
    Actually, surprisingly, yes it could send a few tonnes to Mars. It turns out that the 'delta-v' to get to Mars is only slightly more than the delta-v to get to Geostationary orbit; so the payload would be a bit less that launched today, but it could make it; although you'd probably need to modify the guidance system.

    There's a list of 'delta-v's here.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:Yes, it could. Re:range by addaon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, I do. I would gladly go to Mars, under the understanding that I couldn't return, if there was about a 90% chance of surviving the first year, and some system in place (say, solar or thermal radioisotope power to melt some ice, split off some oxygen) which gave even a 10% chance of making it further. Yeah, chances are I'd end up dead... but even the chance would be worth it. NASA has demonstrated that progress can be made by being conservative and following reasonable saftey guidelines, but it just ain't as much fun, and it's slower! Not saying NASA's doing it wrong, they're not. But if I really had the option, yes, i'd volunteer. Wouldn't you?

      --

      I've had this sig for three days.
  20. Finally... by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Does this mean we've gone back to the "sane" method of launching satellites, and can stop wasting the shuttles (which cost WAY more to send up than a "disposable" launch vehicle) on such mundane tasks?

    I hope so. While I totally support "real" space exploration, the shuttles have, for the past few decades, scammed the US out of billions (trillions, yet?) of dollars. We use them for nothing even remotely interesting, yet pay a fortune to maintain and occasionally launch them.

  21. Re:Can I see too? by oaklybonn · · Score: 5, Funny

    When I was about 14, my parents moved to Jacksonville, FL. I came home from boarding school (ahem, military school) to visit there. We drove down to the cape and did the normal touristy tours of the facilities. They spent a bit of time talking about lightening detectors. Then they announced that there would be a launch today! Gosh was I excited!

    But you know what? My iron bitch mother decided that we had best drive back home *now* before the launch because she didn't want to get caught in traffic. Much whining and pouting later found me crying in the back of the station wagon as we drove away without seeing the launch. (No, I didn't do very well at military school.)

    But you know what? That launch vehicle was hit by lightning and exploded shortly after takeoff.

    And I missed that too. Fuck you, mom.

  22. Re:All Looked good from a live view by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Well, the Shuttle is booked for ISS, but the military hate using it anyway ever since the Challenger fiasco. If a Delta fails then their black projects don't get held up for years on end.

    Also, they can't buy services elsewhere (the Russians have comparable or larger vehicles, for maybe 1/10 the cost), but a lot of these space programs, pretty much, are job creation programs for American citizens so they try to keep the tax dollars in America (quite apart from any security issues).

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
  23. Re:All Looked good from a live view by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why? Do you think the Atlantic crossing had a 100% success rate before Europeans started colonizing North America? Why are people intolerable pussies these days? I'd like to return to the days when America was a nation full of people who had already done a lot of dangerous risky shit, and were sitting around thinking of how they could risk their hides one more time. I'd like to visit the age of space exploration when people thought astronauts were cool not because they grew earthworms in zero-gravity, but because they had the balls to climb up on top of a fucking rocket and light it.

  24. Re:Can I see too? by mcd7756 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I grew up on Merritt Island in the 50s thru 70's. The space shots were just a fact of life. I don't remember the Gemini's, but the Apollo's were awesome. I saw all of them. We lived about 25 miles south of the Cape. When a Saturn V went up, the windows rattled, the ground shook...even the leaves on the trees vibrated. You could feel it shaking your body. Then you'd see this monster flame slowly going up into the sky, with this teeny, tiny white speck at the top. They say those at the press stands could see the shock waves rippling across the ground toward them Even saw Apollo 17, which was a night shot. Sat out on Courtenay Parkway near Jefferson Jr. High School. Listening to the radio I could hear the countdown. At 7 seconds, the engines would cut on, (Took 7 secs at full power before it lifted off) and the whole north sky lit up like the sun coming up. A few seconds later this awesome flaming sword thing started rising up into the sky. The stars weren't visible and my shadow behind me rapidly shrank as the spacecraft ascended. It was way cool. And, it was an incredible demonstration of what flawed humanity can do when they work together. -Mike

    --
    Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them? --Abraham Lincoln
  25. Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles by fname · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, at one point the plan was to use shuttles to launch all the US satellites-- commercial, civil and military. In 1985, there were supposed to be 15 (!) launches. The shuttles were going to VERY inexpensive. The challenger accident happened, and, after a serious re-examination, the program was really tightened up and its mission was narrowed.

    This led to the rebirth of the Delta, the Delta II, to launch the new GPS satellites (planned for shuttle originally). Reagan announced that shuttles were not to be used for commercial satellite launches, and the commercial launch industry was reinvigorated.

    Fast forward 10+ years, the AF decided they need better launch options, give Lockheed-Martin and Boeing (nee Mcdonell Douglas) 1/2 Billion dollars each. They used this to develop the EELVs (Delta IV and Atlas V).

    The point of the EELVs is to replace the Delta II and Titan IV, as far as the Air Force is concerned. Commercial satellites just aren't launched on the shuttles anymore. One or both of the EELVs may be used to launch the new space plane NASA plans to build, and variants could be used to help launch the replacement for the shuttle.

    Any of these rockets can get you to Mars, or at least a Rover. NASA uses Delta IIs for most of their Mars missions, which is much smaller than the IV. Bigger rocket, bigger payload.

    As for the shuttle, it's an amazing piece of technology that is completely unappreciated due to its string of successes, high cost, and early problems. The marginal cost of a shuttle is about $40 million, not $500 million. That higher number comes from dividing the shuttle budget ($2 billion) by the number of launches/year (4). Adding one flight costs $40 million that year, although it will shorten the life of the shuttle, so that needs to be taken into account.

    Then realize that the shuttle is the heaviest launcher in the world right now, it can put more payload into orbit than any other system. That does not include the mass of the shuttle itself. There may not be a space vehicle as versatile, powerful and reliable as the Space Shuttle for another 50 years. It's a shame the shuttle will never recover from its early problems.

  26. What i saw when I watched this one go by DoraLives · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was at work, at Cocoa Beach Surf Company. Apparently I work well enough, 'cause my boss kindly allowed me to go up to the top of our five story parking garage to watch the shot this evening. On top of the garage I met my son, and an old friend who is now senior photographer for the local paper hereabouts, Florida Today. My son had the scanner and his telescope (we're both pretty seriously into this). Nice view from our perch, and we could plainly see the launch vehicle, sitting there on the pad out on the Cape, lit up by the searchlights. After sundown, but not dark by any means. The guy on the Photo Ops channel counted it down and when they fired it up, it put out an impressive blaze of orange flame, and began lumbering upward. Kinda slow getting off the ground and as my son (staring through the telescope) called "tower clear!" I made a comment about how it was nearly as slow as an Atlas getting going. Soon enough, it got to moving right along, arcing seaward over the lights of Cocoa Beach with a brilliant yellow-orange flame topping a dense column of smoke from the two strap on solid rocket motors. Nice rumble when the sound finally arrived. It moved into and above the deck of thin cirrus that covered the whole sky, and remained plainly visible and audible. I wondered aloud to my son as to how it was going to look when the solids went out and were jettisoned. (The main engine is LOX/LH2 and has no sensible flame that you can see. It's see-through clear, kinda like an alcohol flame or something like that) Soon enough, the two solids separated and could be seen winking on and off, tumbling over and over in free fall, now in direct sunlight way the hell and gone up there. The Delta IV continued on its merry way, now arcing (apparently) downward, as it sped towards an aim point vastly beyond our local horizon. Surprisingly, despite the LOX/LH2 flame, it remained QUITE bright. Moreso even than the Shuttle, which has an identical deal (LOX/LH2 clear flame) going on after SRB sep. Not sure what the deal is with that. With the Shuttle, the brilliant light is coming from the inside of the three SSME's. The nozzle lining is white hot and puts off a pretty bright light. I guess that's what was going on with the Delta, also, but since the Shuttle has three motors and the Delta has one, I just wasn't expecting that much bright light following SRM sep. Anyhoo, it stayed visible for quite a while, before fading into the cirrus murk out over the ocean. Shortly after everybody else departed the parking garage roof (I'd put a couple of tourists on to the fact that there was going to be a little show today and they were fully stoked at what they saw) my son and I noticed a weird cloud at extreme altitude, with direct sunlight shining on it. We had earlier discussed whether or not this one would "blow a balloon" and had decided that it wouldn't. ["Balloons" form when rockets exit the sensible atmosphere and the exhaust gasses from the engine nozzles begin spreading out without any resistance from the surrounding atmosphere, which isn't there anymore. On evening shots, with the sun the exact perfect distance BELOW the local horizon and the sky the exact perfect shade of dark, the exhaust gas will rapidly expand, and form a weirdly beautiful {fucking GORGEOUS, to be more precise) spectacle in the darkling sky, enveloping the pinpoint brilliance of the rocket itself, before fading away a few minutes later] This bird did NOT blow a "balloon" (we've NEVER seen LOX/LH2 do it and have more or less decided it just doesn't happen), but it DID leave that weirdie bluish-white glowing cloud. Not sure what the deal was. We'll probably both be very old and very gray before an identical set of circumstances repeats. Whatever. Anyway, it was a real pretty shot, and we're glad the vehicle performed nominally and put the payload where it's supposed to be.

    --
    Is it fascism yet?